You Are What You Eat, or Read

I recall a story about about a missionary speaking to a First Nation convert. The exchange concerned the convert’s challenge to living a holy life in his new found faith. “It is like two dogs warring inside me.” “Which dog wins?” “The one I feed the most.” I find this to be an adequate analogy that applies to many more aspects of life. I had a recent spat of blogs which were rather political in nature. Big surprise, I am a Political Science graduate student who hopes to teach in at the collegiate level. I should be a bit of a political animal. I recognized early on, a certain measure of tact necessary for someone of my beliefs and faith needed to remain hireable for such a position in the coming years. Invariably, I’m sure there are opinions expressed in several of my past blogs that might disqualify me from a public institution. That is if such organizations intend on judging people based on their faith, or worse their thoughts from their young adulthood.

I think back to my personal statement on my school application, looking back at my childhood I was almost destined to be a political animal. From car rides listening to talk radio or the constant news on TV, I recalled even as a child having an acute understanding to politics. Needless to say, I do not wish to hijack this blog into some political outlet. My page view counts would certainly advocate such a move, but that was not the purpose of this blog.

The purpose of the blog when it was started and again when it was restarted was to chronicle my adventures and thoughts. As a young man out on his own, stationed in Europe, blogging was a helpful outlet. When I finally got around to moving my blogs to a better hosting medium, I had not yet intended to write again. I have lived in a robust community that frequently challenges my heart and mind in the ways a community ought. It was when I started reading a number of friends’ blogs that I was reminded of the healthy process of observation and self-examination necessary to blog. I have also found this is an opportunity to practice my writing style.

I have spent and will continue to spend the coming years as a full time college student. I easily spend at least an hour each day following major news. This wasn’t a new development. When I was overseas, I devoured news. The ability to attach the necessity of “being in the know” to my graduate work is a convenient intersection. I have recognized a grand failure of my intellectual appetite. I have not read much of any fiction since my elementary days. Even when I did read fiction it was Clancy, Crichton, and the sort. I never learned how to imagine things necessary for fantasy works. It was always fictional stories based in the world I was familiar. I have been seeped in structured writing. The military writing styles were a welcomed tightening of facts that I was already accustomed. The preferred model of writing was to be as clear and concise as possible. When I returned to college it was a noticeable struggle to meet page requirements because I was so used to writing in the briefest manner possible. I still recognize that writing style in my academic writings, but in doing so I also note an oversimplified writing style.

This is where I have to reach out. Reading others who are more expressive in their writings have shown me a beauty in writing which I would like to build. I’m not yet in the place that I can start to chisel through the fictional works I should’ve read as a child. Then again, all those books I should read, I have watched the movies. This subversive act has negated the need of my imagination drawing something from a blank pallet. In the words of one friend, my imagination is broken. If I do not have a movie or TV show to reference when I read fiction I only see stick figures. Despite any descriptions by the author, such details are forgotten while I try to figure out other details, such as “why should I read this?” and “what is happening?” I see this most clearly when reading the Song of Ice and Fire wiki pages. I look into details fans have extricated from the book's text and the references they provide for such conclusions. There is no doubt I would have missed such subtle descriptive references.
There is also the problem of my present reading appetite. Given my present stage as a 2nd year grad student, I am still overwhelmed with dry prose, concise facts, and persuasive arguments (if I’m lucky, otherwise it is sad propaganda attempts.) In some respects I almost accept the role of being a bit of a political tithe. This was the approach Benjamin Franklin’s parents had to his education. He was supposed to be the minister amongst his nine siblings from the same mother. Am I the citizen who is willing to jump on the bitter sword of political knowledge in order to be the informed one among the masses? If so, democracy has some serious challenges before it.

How do I conclude then? Thank you for your readership despite my vanilla writing style. Hopefully, as I read more and write more blogs this style might be as expressive as it aims to be informative.

A Tale of Two Church Leaders

I recently finished two interesting books each on opposing sides of the “Emergent Movement”. I approached the Emergent church in Divergently Emergent Church earlier this summer. I can’t say what prompted my curiosity, because I already had a pile of books on my “to read” list but I was browsing away and with almost impulse buying speed I purchased Mark Driscoll’s Confessions of a Reformissional Rev. and Rob Bell’s Velvet Elvis: Repainting the Christian Faith. The package arrived rather swiftly, much sooner than I expected, and unlike my usual pattern of adding the new stock to the bottom of the “to read” pile o’ books I read them both within the week.

When I pondered the effects of the Emergent Movement I must say with complete honesty, I had little more experience than “I read an article about it here” or “I read this on wikipedia”. I was not as informed as I should have been. I suppose it was coming clean with myself that I was not as informed as I attempted to be which prompted my impulse buying and swift reading. I knew of Mark Driscoll only from a few references in sermons and I think one clip I saw with him doing a Q&A session several years ago. I was familiar with Rob Bell’s books and have seen several of his Nooma. I knew they were both in the Emergent category, but beyond that was nothing but speculation. As you might have noticed I did not offer kind words towards the Emergent Movement in my previous blog.

I don’t think I could’ve read two other books which offered a more polar opposite sides of the Emergent movement. Mark Driscoll was quick to differentiate himself from Emergent, instead adheres to Missional or Emerging. I am not a fan of titles or terms, especially when dealing with Christ’s Bride. Rob on the other hand never mentioned Emergent/emerging or really any term to identify his set of beliefs. As I continued through his book it was extremely clear Velvet Elvis was not written in a systematic style, to say the least. This blog is the first which I will stop apologizing for encouraging whoever reads my blogs to read the latest and greatest book. Mark Driscoll’s was perhaps the best book I have read concerning church, goals, ministry, and establishing a church according to scripture. His vision of church was the embodiment of what I vision church to be. A church whose primary goal was to effect the surrounding area, it would send people throughout the local community and expect its members to invest into the Kingdom. To call Mark’s style unorthodox would be an understatement, what came across to me as un-compassionate, non-loving, and crude ministry in his earlier years were instead tough love on level I have never experienced. He was not eloquent in his speech or methods, but he had the vision, goals, and heart to accomplish them and has made a radical impact on Seattle.

It was not just the success of a man who founded a church which grew to over 4000+ members in 8 years. Throughout his book it was clear the majority of that time was survival and less than 500 members. I was most compelled by the vision to actively seek the punk rock, smoking, un-churched people, growing a church from a group which did not grow up in church. Mark’s commitment to reach such a socially liberal minded crowd, yet be unflinching in his commitment to orthodox Christian doctrine, captivated me. I was inspired by the audacious idea of encouraging people not committed to the mission to leave. A church which constantly kept the big picture in sight, not to bow down to attendees seeking to use resources not in line with broadening the Kingdom. I have often heard the body of Christ analogy, but never was I reminded of the colon’s importance or its role within the church as well.

On the flip side, Rob explicitly encourages us to change Christian doctrine and theology, and implicitly denies scripture as the God’s Word. I have never outright experienced liberal theology like Rob’s. I thought such people only existed on ABC documentaries or classrooms of colleges. I was in awe that as a leader of a church, Rob would openly say “I didn’t even know if I wanted to be a Christian anymore”, as a result of massive attendance, growth, and normalization of his church. He didn’t refer to Christ’s strength to get him through his stress; in fact he described his faith with a “flavor of the week” type of attitude. Anyone who claims to be a Christian leader and would unapologetically have an “I don’t feel like it anymore” attitude brings serious questions to my mind. What kind of Christian Truth is evident with such a statement?

When I considered his implications and the possibilities he suggested I am terrified. First, I think thousands of people are being mislead into a pseudo Christian faith which I describe to be more like a New Age existentialism with a touch of Jesus in the middle. Second, within the first two weeks of starting his church he had more than 2,000 in attendance, at the time of print his church claimed more than 10,000 members. Unlike a misguided, hateful preacher who seeks to proclaim a God of hate with protests at soldiers’ funerals; Rob has a charismatic, appealing type of faith which is claiming a large population. As I went through his book I found 40 claims which I believed to be either questionable or clear denial of Christian doctrine and authority established through Scripture. I know I don’t know everything, but following my recent studies on theology, I am aware of the bigger picture in which certain claims can lead people to a Jesus who never lived. There is a huge part of me that wished I just read everything wrong instead of actually recognizing the theology and approach to scripture Bell advocated and adhered to.

As the months have been passing and my eagerness to rejoin the civilian world grows, I have been pondering much upon my return. A new chapter of my life is on the horizon, my church is in a state of change, and I look forward to accomplishing my long list of goals which have been set aside for the last several years. I wonder, could such an impact be made to better model our church after the scriptural example of Mark Driscoll’s? I have so many hopes and ideas, yet I fear falling into the trap life tends to ensnare people into a pattern of life as normal.

Epilogue: It has been over a year since Mark Driscoll resigned from Mars Hill Church and subsequently, Mars Hill Church divided into independent churches or closed. It was a sharp reminder that however passionate and truthful a church leader might be, they are not perfect. Given the long history of challenging aspects of Driscoll's style and ministry, I found it profoundly sad that the issue which brought the end of Mars Hill was what I viewed as a misunderstanding compounded by his overbearing leadership style. Rob Bell similarly left his church, I believe it was to go on a speaking tour for a time and he continues to write, he had a number of TV projects. Love Wins essentially served as his theological treatise to depart from orthodox Christian doctrine. Conservative Christian scholars, authors, and leaders examined that writing as Bell's endorsement or adherence to Christian Universalism. A label in my estimation that Bell objects to, not becuase it mischaracterized his position but because it was a label.

Prove It

I was surfing some of the most popular blogs just to see what grabs everyone’s attention and usually on the top 100 or so there are some insightful religion and philosophy blogs. I do this from time to time, I suppose to see what other people are thinking, and there is also a part of me that wonders how people get on the top read blog list. While scrolling down the lists, I read some irrational concepts people have to justify double standards and poor relationships before I got to the interesting reads.

I find it interesting that there is a decently strong presence of atheistic themed blogs. Within their own context they seem to range between a rant about Christians or a challenge to beliefs that many Christians believe like Creationism or the sort. It takes a bit more scrolling down the list before I can find a well written blog of a living Christian. I wonder if we can gauge the popularity of such blogs as a growth in atheism/anti-Christian attitude. I find reading the same arguments and accusations against Christianity or Christians disheartening. There appears to be a constant supply of proclaiming Christians who do not live as we ought. At the same time, in the blogosphere, the ability to identify the Fruit as evidence of faith is rather impossible. It is particularly challenging knowing that there are many nominal Christians who are not differentiated from practicing Christians.

After reading most of the arguments against the existence of God I am anxious to read the other works that are counter/anti-religion. I know the God Delusion has been a big one for quite some time, I think it is on my future read list. Reading what the reasons against God are in a full essay format I find it that much easier to see the misconceptions and assumptions. In the point- counterpoint book I am reading I had to take a step back to look at the "Does God Exist?" debate. I know I have commented on debates in mass print or broadcasted before on the same topic but during the course of this one there was a new epiphany. I don't know why it has taken me so long to see this reason, after all scripture explains this same fact. In the public context of "Does God exist?" it is apparent Christians are at the very best paddling the canoe up a waterfall. It is not because we have weak arguments, lack evidence, or have poor rationale that it seems reasonable to reject our beliefs.

"Does God exist?" is too general of a question. It is perfect for the atheist because they can attack Thor as much as God. The presence of hundreds of different deities throughout the world allows a plethora of examples to reject. At the same time, the Christian must explain the characteristics of the Judeo-Christian God in order to separate him from Allah, or Siddhartha. The separation that Christians must make and emphasize to show the difference of God versus the other gods puts a greater burden of proof that is so much so it can easily distract from the goal of the discussion.

Once the Christian has stated the characteristics of God the atheist can really go to town. So far I have found the rejection of God is not because of a lack of evidence for the God of Christianity but for the God of Christianity that the atheists want him to be. For instance, the atheist claims there are no good evidence for the existence of God. However, when the evidence is often presented the atheist rejects such evidence because it is not how they want their God (who doesn’t exist…) to do it.

For example, using the Problem of Evil to disprove God, the atheist claims there is too much pain and suffering at some level. Sometime it is a personal experience, sometimes it is the philosophical citizen of the world. When the Christian might try to explain that pain exists due to the presence of sin or free will, the atheist can respond that if God really was God then he could do it better or differently. This happens with every good argument for the existence of God. The Christian presents it, the atheist rejects it because they want it done a different way. Essentially it is a debate in which the atheist requires us to prove to them that their God exists. They have been rejecting the God who does not exist. It gets even better, often times, the atheist will put the burden of proof on Christians when the points from which they demand proof are contrary to orthodoxy. One example is something along the lines of withholding pain and suffering but still have a way in which the lessons from such pain and suffering can still be known, in the same way it was made known by experience.

The short sightedness of the atheistic arguments is a decent challenge to the Christians in this debate. Through reading this debate book I recognize the focus we must have ought to be on eternity, this cannot be forgotten. While the Christian view carries on for all eternity, so that the pain, suffering, evil (all justified with moral law) will be answered and solved, when the end of the road is the human lifespan such resolution cannot be fulfilled. Suppose someone rejects God because a bridge fell on someone they loved, or because they were repelled by the pain people were suffering from Hurricane Katrina. However, for those of us that know there is an eternal scale we view death, pain, and suffering with a different looking glass. Atheists want paradise/heaven on Earth while simultaneously rejecting the only being who has the potential to make it happen. They don't conceive that there is an afterlife or there is a greater purpose/meaning for life other than personal pleasure. It is not that our faith is irrational; it is that they don't like our rational.

The last point I noticed so far was that in order for many of the atheists to believe that God exists they must be able to fully comprehend and understand what God is doing and how he works. Essentially they want to be God and since that can be god in their own mind they don't want to admit it. The root of atheism as Ravi Zacharias writes is that people don't want to have to submit to anyone/thing, they reject the idea of faith and submission, not the evidence for the God that we believe. I reflect these thoughts with a heavy heart, on one side of me "ask, seek, and knock" comes to mind in which they must be willing to believe if they are going to be able to understand. I also look at the reasons Christ said he used parables. He will hide the truth from those not willing to accept it and will grant understanding to those who will. This seems so contrary to the way I would do it, to me it would make sense if all could see and understand, however, this might just be why I have to have faith. When there are those instances of "God, why do you do it that way?" I cannot get caught up on the why's and lose sight of what matters. Constantly reading apologetics that provide the intellectual response for Christianity there is a danger that I forsake God as the one who knows it all and become a modern Pharisee.

A 5-Minute Attempt to Address the Problem of Evil

The problem of evil as stated in most philosophy classes is one of the greatest counter arguments to the existence of a good God, namely the God Christians believe in. This was the primary topic of Lee Strobel's "Case for Faith", but the book had a better explanation to my systematic mind was I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist, the final contributing source to this blog is Switchfoot's The Shadow Proves the Sunshine. Ravi Zacharias very well argues peoples’ true reservations for philosophically denying God's existence is their own will to not want to have to answer for their behavior or submit to something much greater than themselves in The Real Face of Atheism, the presence and problem of evil is still one of the most popular topics of discussion.

I am writing this with an entirely different spin on the point, the "presence" of evil exists. For several years at my current point of maturity I am hard-pressed to say that I actually regret anything that I did. Not because I think I am some perfect being whose sins have not hurt or offended anyone, but because through my failures I have developed to be the person that I am today. If I had never experienced hardships, failure, and trials I suspect I would have a paper thin faith if any at all, at least on the personal level with Christ.

As I have read from several sources in addition to a number of sermons the most common answer to the problem of evil is that evil in itself does not exist. Instead evil is a description much like hot and cold. Cold is not tangible, cold by its very definition is the absence of heat. Just as the definition of darkness is an absence of light, evil is the definition of an absence of good. Philosophically it addresses the problem very well because one of the premises of the Problem of Evil as it is stated in philosophy is that evil exists. By defeating the premise, the argument is void. I think it also has the benefit of showing how we must promote and behave "good" to best combat evil. Although this reason philosophically by technicality is satisfying to some, to the majority of the population that has experienced evil, it is very unsatisfying to the heart.

My next point about the problem of evil, and why I think its feeling confirms the existence of God. People admit to themselves and others that they believe in absolute morals and therefore an absolute moral lawgiver by ones reaction to evil and pain. The best example I have is from a story about a college student and his professor. The student’s final paper was to argue for a point, any point. The student decided to argue against moral absolutism. When the student turned in the paper he was very disappointed with the grade. On the front of the paper it said "F, I don't like blue folders." The folder happened to be blue. Upset the student argued with the professor and claimed that the grade was not fair nor did it merit the F based on the color of the folder. The professor simply smiled and pointed out that, "you argued that there is no such thing as fair, moral, or right, therefore I don't like blue folders so you grade remains an F!" The moral of the story is that by the student’s reaction to injustice, his absolute belief in justice, fairness, and morality was confirmed. It is by people’s reaction to evil that they confirm what good should be.

Most people will argue that because evil exists that God doesn't exist, after all why wouldn't he stop it? Well the Christian answer to why evil is in the world is because sin is in the world. Sinful people commit evil deeds on people. Even more, natural disasters are also the result of sin, perhaps not as directly as a sinful person murdering another person as being evil, but because sin entered the world at the Garden of Eden. All of creation was rocked, the world was no longer as it was meant to be, and that is the world we currently reside.

To further elaborate people confirm what right and wrong is by our reactions to wrong, is the song I mentioned earlier. The Shadow proves the Sunshine I don't think I need to go further than the title of the song for the point to be made. Without the darkness we can't appreciate the good and justness of God. After all, if there was no light how would one recognize it is dark? We wouldn't because that is all that there would be. In the same way, the existence of the shadow proves that sunshine does exist.

A Theory In Crisis, Intelligent Design vs. Evolution

Many of you know how I like to argue things; I have a more distinct fervor for arguing things that I think have a connection with our faith but do not require our faith for the explanation to make complete sense. Something that occurred to me either this morning or sometime yesterday while I was almost a lone ranger on the Hard Core Christians Living Hardcore MySpace forums arguing for Creation against several advocates of evolution. I found it entertaining and somewhat challenging, not so much because they came up with new arguments that I have never seen before, but because I had to explain and come up with examples of evolution's incompleteness. It is not often that an entire debate will end in one sitting in a forum atmosphere but this one did.

I don’t want to keep this blog unreasonably long because I noticed from my previous blog I got a little too excited to dump all the arguments on the table and it only resulted in a really long blog that intellectually vomited on the reader with so many points and arguments. I found as I got to the last several points to fully elaborate would be simply too long. I suppose that is what happens when I try to summarize points made from several books and journals into such a small place like a single blog. So let's see how this one goes.

Oh before I get on with it I also want to through a shout out to Michael Behe's "Darwin's Black Box". This is a very interesting book so far, I am about 1/6 of the way through it, it is through Dr. Behe's style of this read that this blog has really come to be. He does not claim to believe in Intelligent Design or Young Earth theory (the earth is 6k-10k years old) like most authors of material that question evolutionary theory as it stands today. On one hand I feel as though he is arguing for something he doesn't fully believe in, but then it hit me, he isn't really arguing for Creationism as his quotes are being used throughout the world in creation vs. evolution debates. All Dr. Behe is doing in this book, so far, is pointing out that evolution as it stands has issues that need to be addressed.

As simply as I see it in my mind right now it is that evolutionary theory has many problems within itself. So far Dr. Behe has not gotten on a soap box after exposing difficulties with the theory; he has just shown how the current theory is inadequate for what it is. These problems range from: the origin of life, benefits through mutation, irreducible complexity, explanation of the Cambrian explosion, and overall age of the earth in respect to what mutations must exhibit, and the list goes on. Each of these problems I can write a mouthful about it with my limited knowledge on the subject. I know full well I can't explain the complete difficulties and failings of the theory but I can give a good summarization of each of those issues. To get a full explanation the kind that should be the satisfying standard of the scientific world would require some serious post-graduate level explanations.

I am not saying that only people with doctorates can understand or explain the problems, just that the bases of those problems need to be explained at such a level that it takes an expert in that field of science. For example, as a micro-biologist Dr Behe listed on the molecular level a very "basic" version of how sight functions in our eyes. I know I am more current with remembering my college biology and chemistry and even that "basic" explanation had me struggling to get the gist of it. This example of the eye is just one of the many problems found within biology that will need micro-biologists to fully explain the function and possibly its origins.

I am greatly tempted to break out some of the evidence in support of creationism but that would be to miss the point that I want to really elaborate upon. Often within a debate over a controversial issue it comes down to two sides, the majority verses the minority. This is present in every debate setting, but as I pointed out in my abortion blog, there is actually a core issue within the debate. It is not given the attention it deserves instead the arguments dance all around the core topic. Abortion for example is "Is the unborn human?" simple as that. What is the core issue within the creation vs. evolution or ID (Intelligent Design) vs. Evolution argument?

In the midst of the "us vs. them", feel of this debate I think many people over look the true stance of the ID community. It is not so much that we are pointing to evolutionists and saying "you're wrong", we are pointing to evolutionists and saying, “you got problems and contradictions within your theory." In addition we like to add "our explanation through ID fits like this..." That is the heart of the issues as I see it. I think special attention needs to be made to keep this idea in mind because it is so easy to get bogged down in so many arguments which turn into an intellectual shouting match, sometimes not always involving intellect or shouting.

Remembering My First Love

This one hit me as I was pondering the activities and thoughts that encompassed this last weekend. Granted the mood extends a bit further than this last weekend, I dare say a couple weeks to a month. I haven’t been feeling spiritually in touch very much in the recent time period. Not so much hot or cold, but lukewarm.

When I put that description into actual thoughts I appreciated John’s letter to Laodicea so much more, I think have a greater appreciation. I recall listening to a Hume message about the churches in Revelations not too long ago. That is just where I know I have been lacking recently. I have been spending so much time reading books about God and good books at that. I wish I would read more often when I am home. In my scurry to get so much spiritually empowering material to set my mind on I forgot about reading scripture. I am looking back now seeing why I didn’t feel as whole as I had before. It was a really awkward feeling too, because I felt so-so. I don’t like being unable to define where I am lacking. I know when I am on fire and passionate, I know when I sin and I feel departed from the close communion that I had. The recent weeks have been filled with “ehhh”, the understanding and ability to look back on it reminds me how important it is to stay in the word. I made the mistake of thinking the spiritual books would be enough or just mad dashed to keep reading the books that I forgot about the one I have had with me all along.

Reading scripture for me has been a constant on and off struggle since my senior year, before then I don’t think I made that much of an attempt to really read scripture on a daily basis. Somewhere in my “busy” schedule I replace the time spent on something, hopefully good intentioned and get caught up so easily to forget to return to my first love. The bible is clear about what we need to focus on to stay plugged in, why is it so hard for me to follow through?

Why is it that when I am on the right track and feel my strongest I tend to fall so easily and without major incident so often? When on the defensive my guard is up, my head in the right place, once I get confident, my guard goes down and then I am writing another blog about failure. I still remember to never say “never” in a prayer, I am just tired of the cycle.

I treasure the conversations from this weekend on IM that got me pondering about spiritual things. I greatly underestimated the support that you all give me at home; every time I get to talk to you guys about real stuff it really encourages me. I was talking with one of the guys this morning about Kansas again, I am looking forward to it so much, not cause I don’t like Germany, but I am so alone out here. I’ve been whining about being lonely for months, probably cause it is never getting any easier. I will certainly be able to connect with people that have never been plugged into a strong church or at least share experiences, perhaps this is exactly what I was thinking of when I said I wanted to join “to gain life experience”. I hope the trials I have endured will be able to validate what I can say to so many that have left their church home and lost their passion. I hope from what I experienced and with God carrying me through it all I can encourage the college students in Kansas. Oh yea, apparently there is a major college across the street from the post. I hear so many statistics about people that leave their faith when they leave home, hopefully that statistic won’t be as high in Kansas.

Epilogue: Sometime after I wrote this and hoped so genuinely to move with my unit to Kansas, I was informed that I would not be going. I went to a new unit in Germany, it had its own blessings.

Why Don't I?

When I reflect upon what I have done on my own to grow spiritually over the last 4 or 5 months I find it comforting to know that I am frequently spending time to grow; be it through reading/studying or one of the several forms of media that I have. The most recent series I watched was some sermons by Andy Stanley out of a church in Georgia. He had an interesting series on the Gospels, similar to the route of Case for Christ, but emphasized what was most probable and how logically thinking people could deny the Gospel's truth. They had a nifty skit to see if Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John could stand on trial.

Anyways the "this" I refer to is my behaviors to seek Christ and grow spiritually. Although I do find it comforting to know that I am seeking God, a question hits me now and again usually while I am just pondering as I rake leaves or do some meaningless task. Why didn't I do this back at home? I mean since I have been here I have read a book, wrote several Bible studies, listened to probably more than a hundred hours of sermons and seminars. The majority of the resources I have had for quite some time. Why does it take me being in the most isolated place I have ever been spiritually, to seek active growth?

Take the Hume messages for instance, I have had those since the conclusion of the 2003 Summer. I think I might have listened to 2 weeks’ worth of messages to remember what they said. I was tracking which messages I had taken notes on and just listened to and so far I have gone through a couple fishermen conferences, a youth pastors' conference, and several weeks of summer camp messages and a few miscellaneous messages. Why does it take the harsh circumstances for me to finally be proactive? Maybe I see more opportunities to share with people so I want to follow 1 Peter 3:15 to be ready at any moment to give a defense for the hope that I have. That would be a great church answer wouldn't it?

Sadly I think it is because there is a part of me that wants to be independent. I wouldn't try to say why I want to be so independent so often, could be part of my personality maybe that is how I was taught with the whole American part, maybe it is because I am a child of Adam. I think many people can try to link events in our past to psychoanalyze why we behave the way we do, with this I think it the Adam part in us. One of the biggest things that I have learned in my spiritual walk is that this life is about depending on God.

So often we hear the sermons and messages about accepting God and becoming a Christian but this is something that I think has occurred to me over time. People that see Christianity like a bunch of rules often miss the point of making God our God. I like to stress the importance of the relationship with Christ. The close personal connection is where we learn the deeper purpose of why we are instructed to do what we do. All the while we still have that part in us of wanting to be independent. I don't think that can be called our sin nature to want to be independent, or can it? That is pretty scary thing to consider, sin is the separation from God, so if the desire to be independent from God... I think that can qualify. Whoa... So does that extend the dangers of freedom into the rest of our lives?

I believe that all the principles of our Christian lives should overflow into our entire beings, but this thought is pretty scary. I think you might see where this is going, is freedom a bad thing? Phew, when I get to this point I can easily say "no". Our freedom of choice is paramount in our ability to sin and God loving us enough to let us do what we want. So from that angle freedom is a good thing. I suppose what got me on the path of pondering its potential was that freedom is able to be used for good or evil. Looking back at where my thoughts were going, the potential to do wrong is always present, I often wish I did not have that potential but it is something I must continue to battle daily.

This really got me thinking from the last sermon I saw. It was about Zedikiah and the overall behavior of the Jews throughout the Old Testament. The repeated process that we see throughout the Jewish history from the time of Saul until Zedikiah, the last King of Israel, was a pendulum of faithfulness. Jeremiah warned Zedikiah to repent from his ways and he wouldn't so God stepped back and let Nebuchadnezzar do his conquering thing. Granted when I do my own thing I don't go as far as Zedikiah got nor was I disciplined as harshly. Mr. Stanley had a really true statement I found great value; God does not discipline those he loves to punish them, but to win them back. How often do we have to get to our wits end before we'll turn around and do it God's way? If you are anything like me, I will usually get so far or so devoted and not see the danger or see the need to keep the guard up and then I am repenting, again.

I hate to think this cyclic process is a lack of commitment on my part, but how dumb am I that I keep falling for the same things every time? I mean this is a tried and true cycle, not quiet set to a calendar but good grief talk about repetitiveness. That was much of my spiritual behavior back at home and not that far from what it is here. I know I don't fall as often as I did when I was at home because the danger is much more apparent and constant. What I keep returning to, is why do I only respond to the danger I see? After all Ephesians 6:10-13 clearly tells us that we are fighting the unseen. This goes right back to the material from Romans 6, probably the most studied chapter that I have heard commentaries and looked at, and I still fight, sometimes I win sometimes I loose. When I lose I recall a bit from I think it was Todd Arnet that said it, it was something along the lines "I am not activity constantly fighting sin, because if I was, it would've been long gone from me. I fight sin in bursts, and when I sin, it is because I wanted to."

Epilogue: As I read through this to correct the grammar and typos, I was grieved by the blatant pride I had in the faith that was so important. I survived that trial of faith by the God's provision alone. I was reminded why I embraced Reformed Theology so much, that I had to be humbled. Reformed Theology is a non-essential discussion Christians can have with each other upon finding the common ground of basic orthodoxy. This simply reminded me why Reformed Theology was necessary for me.